Iranian Nuclear Talks

By Stephen Lendman - Posted on 07 April 2013

Iranian Nuclear Talks

by Stephen Lendman

On April 5, so-called P5+1 talks began. They picked up where previous ones left off. Countries involved include America, Britain, China, Russia, France and Germany. Almaty, Kazahhstan played host. It did so for the second time.

"This morning, (Jalili) presented the opposite side with Iran's specific proposals for the start of a new round of cooperation between the P5+1 and Iran."

His deputy, Ali Baqeri said "proposals have been regulated within the framework of Iran's overall plan presented in Moscow."

"Iran believes that what is referred to as confidence building measure, which includes a set of actions that need to be agreed upon and brought into action by both sides, is part of a comprehensive solution and not an insignificant part of the solution or something alongside it."

"On the very same basis, the proposal that Jalili offered to the representatives of the G5+1 countries this morning presented a specific framework to the opposite side."

On April 4, Jalili said progress is possible if P5+1 countries "accept the inalienable rights" of Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear power use.

He criticized Washington. He called new talks "a test for American behavior." He did so justifiably. He knows who's friend and foe.

An unnamed US official said:

"How far we get depends on what the Iranians come back with in terms of a response on the substance of our proposal."

It imposes unjustifiable constraints on its legitimate uranium enrichment rights. It requires closing its fortified Fordo facility. Its underground for good reason. It’s within a mountain for protection.

"We believe a longterm settlement should be based on the recognition of Iran’s unconditional right to develop its civilian nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium," he said.

Russia's working closely with its Chinese counterparts. "We highly value close dialogue" on Iran's nuclear program, he added. "Our positions coincide in many aspects."

Moscow Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich added:

"Regrettably, the sides have not yet started to move forward formulating compromise-based agreements."

Gary Samore oversaw White House nuclear arms issues in Obama's first term. He expects prolonged diplomatic wrangling. He has low expectations going forward. He turned truth on its head saying:

"The Iranians use diplomacy in an effort to try to show that there’s progress and therefore no further sanctions are justified, and to the extent that it looks like there’s progress it helps maintain the value of the rial."

Washington and its partners "use diplomacy in order to demonstrate that Iran is being intransigent and unreasonable and therefore more sanctions are required. That process is going to continue."

On April 6, the Financial Times[2] headlined "No deal in sight at Iran nuclear talks," saying:

"Negotiators failed to narrow their differences." Further discussions are "unlikely to achieve more than a willingness to keep talking."

"With all sides aware that (failure heads things) closer to war, no one in Almaty (spoke) about abandoning diplomatic efforts. But an actual deal seemed as far away as ever."

An unnamed Western diplomat said:

"We had a substantive exchange. But there is still a wide gulf between the parties. We are considering how we move on from here."

Pro-Western International Crisis Group Iran specialist Ali Vaez said "instead of narrowing, the gap between the sides actually widened."

Day two talks ended. Reports say they failed. Catherine Ashton said "(i)t became clear that our positions remain far apart." More talks may follow. No date or location were mentioned.

Imam Khamenei[3] dismisses direct US talks. He calls them "a US tactic meant to deceive the world's public opinion and the Iranian people."

If untrue, America must prove otherwise. "Past experiences and the situation on the ground show the Americans are not seeking to resolve this issue and want it to remain unresolved to have a pretext for exerting pressure on the Iranian nation."

"We have repeatedly stated we are not after nuclear weapons." He added that Tehran never opposed enforcement of IAEA regulations. Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. It's legitimate. It threatens no one.